Jesus Lied - He Was Only Human: Debunking the New Testament (10 page)

Considering we also know that the original manuscripts of the New Testament were tampered with, with bits added and deleted, it is evident that the founding Church lied. In the fourth century, the entire story of the virgin birth was fabricated and the church tried to cover it up with this patchwork of fictional lineage. Although, the virgin birth could be accommodated with the inclusion of a few added words into the genealogies to break the physical link between Joseph and Jesus, the Church was obviously cognizant of the fact that this would have simultaneously resulted in breaking the physical link between David and Jesus.

In leaving the genealogies as they are, however, the Church screwed itself by creating two irreconcilable problems:

We will review in later chapters that Paul, like John and Mark, was oblivious of the virgin birth and moreover, Paul wrote in his Romans epistle:

The word used in the Greek manuscript is “sperma”. The same Greek word is translated in other verses as “offspring”. This is the counter to some of the better-scripted argumentative Christians that will retort, “Oh but Joseph must have legally adopted Jesus”. If this were the case Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah, as he had to be a physical descendent of King David through the male line. The ‘sperma’ was required according to biblical law.

Furthermore, don’t be thinking that Jesus could be the “seed of David” through his mother Mary, as some apologists like to counter assert. This assertion violates the Hebrew law, as women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that until the year 1827 AD it was believed, wrongly, that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm. In other words, the female egg was unknown to mankind until the mid-nineteenth century. God flunked biology.

A clever analogy, I once heard, to explain the biblical view is that the woman’s womb was the soil in which the seed was planted. Which is why women who were unable to fall pregnant in those times were labeled “barren”, as in barren soil. It is also illustrated as such in the Book of Genesis:

Which is why God executed Onan on the charge of murder, because Onan intentionally ejaculated all over the curtains and floor rugs rather than impregnate his sister-in-law:

C’mon, I know we (man) didn’t become aware of the fact that it required a woman’s ovaries to form a human being, but you’d think God would’ve realized external ejaculation fell a few yards short of murder.

Ok, now it gets really interesting. We just covered that a woman’s genealogy is not counted or considered under Hebrew Law, and we now know the reason why. But why then does Matthew include the names of four women in his genealogy of Jesus? I think I just heard you mutter “what the fuck?” under your breath. Because that’s what I said when I discovered this. In Matthew’s lineage of Jesus, are the women – Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. Who were these women?

Tamar:
Performed an unconscionable sexual act that only a
Desperate Housewives
scriptwriter could have equaled. The Bible says her husband passed away, and she became desperate to preserve her husband’s name. Her scheme? She pretended to be a prostitute, and lured her father-in-law into ravaging her. To whom she bore twins, one of whom was named Perez, who fits into the family line of Jesus. This tawdry event is amusingly spelt out in Genesis:

In other words, he shagged her for the price of one goat and his family tree. Oh, how sweet! Hang on; wouldn’t this have invoked God’s ire due to their blatant violation of one of his 613 commandments? Well, let us turn to the Book of Leviticus:

Both of them are criminals in God’s eyes, but they went unpunished. The end of this story, however, is she was successful, and if not for her devious actions the lineage to David then to Jesus would have apparently been affected.

Rahab:
Fresh from ordering his army to perform a mass circumcision (imagine that discussion, Joshua, riding atop his horse, addresses his weary army, “Gents, we’re almost ready to sack Jericho for our Lord, but I’ve had a revelation, I think God wants us to chop the top of our cocks off”… then a dude standing in the rear asks, “did he say we’d have to eat rocks?”) Joshua was preparing to inflict his God inspired genocide on the residents of Jericho he sent in an advanced team of two spies. The two clandestine operatives stay the night inside Jericho’s walls with Rahab the prostitute. She provides them “comfort”, and a place of refuge as word had spread throughout the city that the Hebrews on the warpath.

After the ancient Hebrews have completely and successfully ethnically cleansed’ the entire city’s occupants, Joshua provides Rahab and her family grace in return for her pre-genocide assistance.

Bathsheba:
This is the woman most remembered for taking a bath, fully naked, atop her roof, in full view of King David’s palace, in an effort to seduce the king to her lovely woman wobbly-bits. The king, like any other red-blooded Hebrew of the time, David had several hundred concubines for example, grabbed her and did the ‘nasty thing’, and her son carried on the family line to Jesus.

Ruth:
The only woman of the four without a tainted past, Ruth was a Moabite woman who married a Hebrew man, Boaz. It’s a long story but the message is that Hebrew men could make a foreign woman turn good.

Now, why would Matthew include four women, three guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety, and one a foreigner that the Hebrews detested? Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women in his genealogy of Jesus? The only reason that makes any sense,
the only logical explanation is that Joseph impregnated Mary prior to them being married
. A fact evidently known to many at that time.

If people knew of Jesus’ illegitimacy, it would have been used to counter the argument that he was the Messiah. By including these four “easy” women as ascendants of King David in Jesus’ genealogy, the counter argument now becomes, “so what difference does one extra “easy” woman make in a bloodline full of them?

Even if we’re wrong, and it seems highly improbable, at least we can lay claim Jesus came from a long line of sexual deviates! Nice.

Insofar as the circumcision of Jesus is concerned, this is a story that is completely exclusive to Luke. The other Gospels make no mention, not even the plagiarizer Matthew. The narrative has the eight days old Jesus presented at the Temple to a priest by the name of Simeon. Luke alleges that God had promised Simeon that he would not die until he had circumcised the new king of Israel, that being Jesus. Receiving baby Jesus with both arms, the priest gave the following rendition:

The passage below this reads:

Again Luke covertly slips in referring to Joseph as Jesus’ father, again, but more significantly, how is it that the above words of the priest would’ve caused Mary to marvel? This is a woman that according to Luke, had been previously foretold by an angel she would conceive God’s son without the necessity of sweaty non-air-conditioned Palestinian sex with a short, fat, hairy and sweaty Palestinian man. Then on the day of Jesus’ birth, her son’s arrival is celebrated by umpteen numbers of angels and mystery shepherds led by spirits. But now all of a sudden, she is said to be amazed at a mere few words given by a priest? It really just seems completely arbitrary, doesn’t it?

Ultimately, we have demonstrated in just the opening stanza of Jesus’ recorded life that his biographers were merely human, and were not exempt from making super-human errors. Any Christian that continues to maintain the position that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, past this point, has had their argument ravaged by the very authors who wrote the thing. A single error, discrepancy, contradiction or incorrect historical claim eliminates the Bible’s claim of inerrancy, and we have already illustrated this most beautifully. But stay tuned, as there is more fun to come!

A woman takes her 16-year-old daughter to the doctor. The doctor says, “Okay, Mrs. Jones, what’s the problem?”

The mother says, “It’s my daughter; Darla. She keeps getting these… cravings, she’s putting on weight and is sick most mornings.”

The doctor gives Darla a good examination then turns to the mother and says, “Well, I don’t know how to tell you this but your Darla is pregnant. About 4 months would be my guess.”

The mother says, “Pregnant? She can’t be, she has never ever been left alone with a man! Have you Darla?”

Darla says, “No mother! I’ve never even kissed a man!”

The doctor walked over to the window and just stares out it. About five minutes pass and finally the mother says, “Is there something wrong out there doctor?”

The doctor replies, “No, not really, it’s just that the last time anything like this happened, a star appeared in the east and three wise men came over the hill. I’ll be damned if I’m going to miss it this time!”

The Gospels on Jesus’ Adolescent Years

What do Christians know about the young boy, Jesus? Not much, as there is little to know of Jesus’ adolescent years using only the New Testament as your reference. If we exclude the one narrative mentioned in Luke, these years, Jesus aged 13-30, are indeed his ‘missing years’.

Jesus travels to India during his missing formative years. He meets with Krishna and an old white bearded man. It’s a Saturday so they decide to play a round of golf at the Mumbai Country Club. All three players are approximately 180 yards short of the green on the longest par 5 of the course. Krishna turns to Jesus, and the bearded dude, “Lads, $100 to whoever can hit nearest the pin from here.”

The bet is locked in. Krishna pulls out his 6 iron and shanks his shot into the water guarding the front side of the green. Unperturbed, he walks to the edge of the water, closes his eyes, then levitates himself across the water, pulls out a pitching wedge, and hits the ball onto the green, 6 feet from the flag, all without getting a single drop of water on himself.

Jesus is up next. Like Krishna his approach falls into the water. Jesus unconcerned, walks to the edge of the pond, steps across the surface of the water, pulls out his wedge, and presto he is now 4 feet from the hole.

Finally, the old bearded guy plays his. The ball sails towards the water, as it is about to make its entry into the pond, a frog jumps up and grabs the ball in its mouth. Watching on was an opportunistic eagle, who swooped on the frog taking him his mouth. The eagle swallowed the frog, then flew above the green and pooped out the ball before landing in the centre of the hole with a ‘plop’.

Krishna turned to Jesus, and said, “This is the last time I ever play with your Dad!”